Nahh, around here, the ‘Taxed Enough Already’ party is the enemy.
After all, every third word isn’t Jesus.
Or to be more clear, the TEA party was all about reduced spending and reducing the scope of government. They actually made an effort to keep out social issues. And here (for what looks to be the majority of Freepers, nowadays), all that matters is G-d, abortion, and gay marriage.
Western ethics and it’s social morality go with individual freedom. People are educated and expected to act morally and ethically in their business and public dealings. One must be moral to survive on your own and permit others to survive on their own. The opposite of morality and ethics is corruption.
For example, Banksters giving out loans to people who were unqualifed was fine in humanism because it made them a lot of money and it met the demand from Leftists that poor people buy property. It was unethical though, because it was dishonest and predictiably crashed the real estate market. They did not have the ethics and morality to resist the urge for quick money in a political deal of fraud. They passed their guarenteed losses onto real estate investors. Given investment is based on truth and honesty in reporting to investors and sound business practices, dishonesty precludes the free market. When people will not monitor themselves and each other, they are corrupt. You can’t have a free market that is corrupted by humanistic or amoral politicans and oligarchs.
Most recently humanism priests, or it’s “bio-ethicists” proclaimed killing already born children is ethical. They advocate China’s State dictated one child policy be imposed by all nations on their people. They demand that all children be sexually groomed in all adult sexual behaviors and that discernment is “hate.” When people resist the State imposition of elitist social demands, they shout them down as “religious.” It’s just the flip side of the Vatican dictating self serving social beleifs, behaviors and norms to the whole society in old Europe. It’s more like the Soviet Union doing the dictating. The humanist temple is the University and government. I’m not a member. Amorality is not my god.
Elitists have not been all that honest and successful at social engineering (cultural cleansing) and should not be using the government to impose their humanistic beliefs about sex, marriage and family on the whole nation. It’s none of their business and they should not have social dictating power anymore than should the Pope. We are not all one thing socially. It’s a many way street.
You have to tolerate hearing about Jesus and I have to tolerate your love of homosexuality and your ideal of amorality in a free society. As long as I don’t make you bow down to Jesus and you don’t wag your ass in my face or my children’s faces, through the power of the state that is fine. Neither of us should have the power of the state to dictate socially. When the State takes up the cause of dicting socially, for humanists or for Muslims say, we end up in conflict or a struggle to impose our social structure over that of others. That is where America is thanks to humanist social engineers.
This is the spirit of the Tea Party. Just because they decided not to be socially active in conservative social issues does not mean they want to be socially dictated to by liberatarians (humanists) instead of Christians or Muslims. They want to be free to be ethical and raise there own children and associate with the ethics (sexual and otherwise) they choose for their own families and walk in life.
So in gentle terms, scew off with your gay sex agenda, mkay? It has nothing to do with freedom or the Tea Party. You yap at me and my children about homosex and I will yap at you about Jesus. You don’t want to be bothered with Jesus and I don’t want to be bothered by gay sex problems and being free, neither of us should be even talking about it in the framework of politics cause neither of us should have the power to dictate to the other. So call off your one-size-fits-all humanist dogs and Christians won’t have to tell you where to stick it. That is freedom.:)
Yep.
Where I disagree with you is that if you want to be granted the ability to live your life the way you desire... and want to raise your children the want you believe; then you have to grant that to others that do not live their lives the way you do, nor raise their children the way you would.
And what I see with the majority of the vocal social conservatives here at the Free Republic... is that they most adamantly *DO NOT* believe in that point.
The postings I've seen from them simply boil down to how their social beliefs are right (fine and dandy to me, because I agree with them)... and how everyone else that doesn't have those same values most be made, through the force of law, to comply with them.
Which I don't agree with, as explained in my first paragraph.
Which dovetails nicely into the small-government, states' rights point of view.